Talk:Wizard in the Leaky Cauldron
Book of choice Anything that might be worth adding to the page considering the book he's reading? It's certainly not something one would expect a wizard to read. Maybe an article for the book itself? Omnibender - Talk - 00:11, August 9, 2011 (UTC) :But there is a page on the book: A Brief History of Time. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 00:39, August 9, 2011 (UTC) ::I must be incredibly air-headed not to have seen the link to it. Omnibender - Talk - 00:45, August 9, 2011 (UTC) Actually, some people on tumblr have pointed out that most Muggleborns lived the first ten or eleven years of their life with science. You can't just throw that away easily. Also note that he's using wandless magic, as I recall, that's really hard to control so easy. He's probably one of the smartest wizards around, in both Magic and science. Per Ankh ED 20:15, January 17, 2013 (UTC) Notability IMO, this guy both studying Muggle science and apparently using wandless magic makes him a strong curiosity. He might not make an impact on the story itself, but many watching the films may notice this and wonder what is known about him. Granted, all we know is his choice of reading material and that he appears to be using wandless magic (albeit it could be argued that an enchanted spoon may be responsible), but at the very least some will notice him and want to see if anything else is known about him, even if nothing else is known. I highly suspect that this guy could make a great springboard for an interesting fanfic too... and I suspect keeping an article might increase the chance of that. Avigor (talk) 02:52, December 13, 2013 (UTC) :If you feel this character is notable, I ask you this: What information could be put on this page that couldn't be put on A Brief History of Time? The script essentially debunks the idea that this wizard uses wandless magic ("A solitary WIZARD reads a book while, at his elbow, his COFFEE CUP STIRS ITSELF", implying the magic is produced by the cup and not the wizard), which the only other distinguishing feature of this guy. By the notability standards, unnamed characters with no distinguishing features should be deleted or placed on a hub article. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 03:09, December 13, 2013 (UTC) :Saying that he is not stirring the cup due to the wording of the script is faulty logic. Looking at the scene seems to indicate that he is doing it. Looking at the script, it is inconclusive. He could very easily be causing the cup to stir itself. If you look at the script as if written from a muggle perspective, it would be described as the cup stirring itself wether or not he was using magic. If you look at the script as if written from a descriptive perspective, it is simply stating what is happening and not the magical cause behind it. In essence, trying to draw a definitive conclusion from four words of script is silly, and trying to discredit an extremely interesting background character by definitively saying that he is not performing wandless magic, when he very well might be (and in my opinion probably is) would be unjust. Boby05 (talk) 03:21, December 13, 2013 (UTC)boby05 ::That's true. While I still believe that a self-stirring cup is the most likely interpretation of the scriptwriter's intention, given that reading a book is assigned to the wizard, while stirring is attached to the cup, wandless magic is not an unreasonable assumption (note that I haven't reverted your most recent edits to that effect). That said, I still really feel to see the notability. Wandless magic isn't as uncommon in the films as it is in the books; this same scene features a young Snake Charmer wandlessly enchanting a rope and a maid followed by a sweeping broom that could just as easily be either controlled by the witch or a magical artefact, just like this wizard and his cup. The information here wouldn't be lost, just put onto a "Unidentified Leaky Cauldron patrons" (or something similar) article. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 03:45, December 13, 2013 (UTC) ::It may very well be true that he isn't particularly notable, but it seems like enough people think he is to make his page worth keeping. I point out a recent Cracked.com article that gives the reasons why this wizard is so interesting, particularly if he is performing wandless magic (he is #2 on the list). In short, a wizard who is reading a scientific muggle book might not deserve his own article, and a wizard who may or may not be performing wandless magic (potentially implying that he is powerful, although your point that wandless magic is somewhat common in the movies and therefore not necessarily an indication that he is, in fact, powerful) may not deserve his own article, the combination of the two, a potentially powerful wizard who takes enough interest in muggle science to read a book that most muggles couldn't even understand because they lack the scientific background seems interesting enough to be considered notable. (This comment is unsigned.) :: :For the reason cited so eloquently above, I also support keeping the page. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 18:06, January 31, 2018 (UTC)